Oprah and the good guys: The dozen billionaires with big hearts and even bigger bank balances who are planning to spread their wealth around – by Daniel Bates and Louise Boyle – PUBLISHED: 03:37 GMT, 20 September 2012 | UPDATED: 07:04 GMT, 20 September 2012

Congregated behind closed doors of the grandiose Trustees Room at New York Public Library, this group of individuals made for the wealthiest gathering in the world.

The twelve – Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, Bill and Melinda Gates, Pete Petersen, Leon Black, Jon Bon Jovi, Marc Benioff, David Rubenstein, Steve Case, Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen and Marc Andreessen – may have made their billions from as diverse pursuits as rock music to microchips, but they have united to dedicate vast portions of their wealth to philanthropic causes.

Their combined wealth totals a staggering $126billion – with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in first and second place respectively. The two leaders of the billionaire pack supported the Summit on Philanthropy – where 161 of the richest people in America met to share ideas on how the wealth might be spread across education, poverty, religion, medicine and the environment.

The combined wealth of America’s richest is $1.7 trillion, up from $1.5 trillion in 2011, in due part to the rising stock market, a rebound in real estate values – especially in cities like Los Angeles and New York, and rising values for art works.

The billionaires posed at the library in Manhattan on June 26 this year for the 30th anniversary cover of Forbes 400, published on October 8.

The combined wealth of America’s richest is $1.7 trillion, up from $1.5 trillion in 2011, in due part to the rising stock market, a rebound in real estate values – especially in cities like Los Angeles and New York, and rising values for art works.

Commentator comments :

John Bon Jovi has a restaurant in NJ. Google it… its a non profit. Pretty much can pay what you like. and if you don’t have money, you can work it off. Menu changes daily.

– Laura , Sarasota Florida USA, 20/9/2012 11:31

Gates stole more than he’s ever going to give back through the exploitation of a virtual monopoly with excessive charges for MS software.

– BobCratchet , London, United Kingdom, 20/9/2012 11:27

Oprah obviously didn’t receive the memo to wear dark clothes. Your eyes immediately go to her before the others, ha.

– LH , Essex, United Kingdom, 20/9/2012 11:16

“161 of the richest people in America met to share ideas on how the wealth might be spread across education, poverty, religion, medicine and the environment.” – Spot the odd one out…why on earth give any money to religion? The three Abrahamic faiths are swimming in money as a result of peddling their lies for so many years, particularly institutions like the Catholic church. Take religion out and that’s a pretty good list to start with though.

– Alex , London, 20/9/2012 11:14

And not a single Bullingdon Dining Club member amongst them

– Bigman , Glasgow, United Kingdom, 20/9/2012 11:08

Its good they’re giving the money but I find this public display a bit sickening. Plenty of wealthy give alot without plastering their faces over a magazine making sure everyone knows.

– Linley , Sydney, 20/9/2012 11:08

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

12 people alone have 126 billion? Look here, 12 people represent less than 1% of North America’s 300 million population, so lets have at least 99% of that wealth re-distributed (124.4 billion) to stop a few hundred thousand foreclosures of viable working families that could tip the scales for USA. The remainder of the 1.6 billion (1%) from 126 billion should be redistributed among these 12, which would mean 130 million each. Thats 324 times a 401K for this lot. They can’t go whining about how 99% of their wealth has been lost when they are worth 300+ times a 401K Joe Public now can they? Lets see if the greed and cynicism will prevent these 12 from doing the 99% right thing or if 130 million is fine by them to save 1000s of good American families (interview respectfully, this will be better than American Idol, ‘Middle Wealth Class Idol’ perhaps?). Last chance for the Capitalism model IMHO, otherwise try 20 million Socialist caps on wealth sequestration if these hearts are big enough . . . 20 million is still 50 times a 401K and sveral lifetimes of work for 99% of Americans.

Consider that 1.7 trillion of the 161 richest, 99% of that redistributed would be 1.68 trillion 17 billion split among 161 people would be 10.5 million each, still 25 times a 401K. How about saving 10s of 1000s of middle class Americans’ lives and homes? Perhaps 75% of that could be used for shelters and staples for the poorest as well. This is TRUE patriotism, saving America’s *VIABLE* (do feel free to ferret out those who won’t make the mark) middle class population, and sharing ‘the fat’, and at least making sure the poorest don’t starve or freeze while so-called ‘plutocrat entertainer stars’ go to East Europe and Asia or Africa (WTF?) to do the same (abit better than plutocrat sportsmen with millions but not even owning a single sports facility to their name – these sorts are in sport for MONEY not love of sport – sports fans could do an audit of major brand sponsors to :

identify then boycott those brands that are merely parasiting off sports goods (actually the gambling industry is doing this even as sportsmen throw games off and on for profit . . . ) FROM brands which are actually run by people/execs who do love the sport,not a bunch of snarky executives gloating at people who buy their overpriced sports goods) while locally back home and most cynically, Americans suffer the same starvation and homelessness, freeze to death as well while plutocrats enjoy lives worth more than 3-10 or 50 times 401K. If the country belongs to everyone, then all the land and all the wealth belongs to everyone – that could come off the limit for wealth sequestration at 20 million. No citizen should be allowed to starve, be homeless much less freeze then being supposed equals. Vote properly Joe Publics!

ARTICLE 2

Foster Friess: America Would Be Better Off With More Wealthy People – September 21, 2012 – By Lawrence Sinclair

Sinclair News is publishing part of an article by Tony Lee dated 18 Sep 2012 which was published at Breitbart.com. We are linking our readers to the complete article.

On the one-year anniversary of the fizzling “Occupy” movement that tried to pit the so-called 99% against the 1%, and on the day in which a video of Mitt Romney talking about the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes drove liberals and the mainstream media into fits, Foster Friess on Monday made an argument that society is better off with more rich people.

Friess is one of the wealthiest and most generous people in the world, and he wrote a piece arguing the world would be better off if there were more “fat cats” like him, less government, and more reliance on the free market.

Friess made many valid points, but his arguments became more significant after a video of Romney’s comments at a fundraiser in May was leaked to the left-wing publication Mother Jones.

Under President Barack Obama, the United States has seen more government and less wealth creation and, according to Friess, that has made the country worse off.

“What do wealthy people do with their money?,” Friess asked in the Newsweek column. “They can only buy so many cars, houses, and steak dinners. So we either give it away or invest it.”

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

. . . if there were more “fat cats” like him, less government . . .

Most fat cats only exist because of crony capitalism and contractor collusion. In a real fair or free market, making money is VERY DIFFICULT and after decades prices would be deadly competitive by now instead of inflation which is the fault of the Fed reserve or fiat printing and exotic trading like the stock market which is inflated 1000 times normal value, or fractionated trading of commodities that do not exist or monetization-commoditisation of DEBT which is ridiculous and ILLEGAL because one cannot collect of as of yet labour that has no guarantee upon compound interest WHILE jobless to boot!

Even machines have a shelf life, need maintainance at levels that could never pay off loans for the price of the machine alone much less flesh and blood humans who do far worse than machines on top of being pressured for loan repayments that a jobless society which colludes on EVERYTHING, even political free thought which can get the psychiatric establishment down on dissidents and activists.

So think when a supposed fat cat spends the GDP of a small country, while being in debt 10 to 1 million times of whatever effort any 401K person can put in with the ‘poor’ having no access to housing loans (which should not be compound interest but simple interest or basic entrepreneurial loans, let alone exotic trades), simply because the state will bail out that person who is viewed as accountable by the bank rather than the honest 99% working class type, while ‘massive debt types’ viewed as plutocracy get to destroy the nation.

Finally while more rich people are good, when extreme wealth sequestration of the entire nation say at a 1.61 to 300,000,000+million ratio (1:15,000,000+ or a 1 to 15 million ratio – the 1% owns 15 million times that of the 99%!!!), rather than an enforced limit of 1% to 99% ratio at least, Capitalist limits (like 1% of 1000 top richest people must not be above 1% of the nation’s collective sequesterable wealth) to wealth sequestration NO MORE THAN the richest being 100 times the poorest, are still needed. What 20 million in limits does is make 50 times a 401K a maximum norm. Who among the 99 people of a population of 100 wants to tolerate a single person being worth 15 million times more than their 401K – when they are only worth 401K? Simple math and facts that cannot be ignored. The fat cats are still too fat, the banks and state apparatus will not lend to the 99% and as of now the 161 (or lets say 50,000) richest hold probably 15 million times the poorest collectively! Then read the below pro1% schmooze article . . .http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-20/poverty-inequality-aren-t-as-bad-as-you-think-view.html

When everyone is worth 20 million the remainder can go to USA’s favourite groups of 3rd world nations of choice for ETHICAL expansion of influence. Socialist limits on Capitalism! 20 million wealth limits on everyone. And just look at the NLP in the title of the article . . . Poverty and Inequality ARE ALWAYS BAD. Saying *Not as bad as ‘you’ think’* is apologism for the plutocracy if anything. Shame on Bloomberg! People are dying and getting thrown out of their homes and the 1% gets a ‘not so bad’ article to mock the 99% with?

Mindboggling numbers of the richest. Redistribute already. Millions of Americans do not have access to healthcare, to education, to food and shelter even. Selfish plutocrats sequestering wealth forget that without the ‘unwashed masses’ of low wealth citizens or ‘chattering classes’ of mid wealth citizens, and the would-be plutocrat seeming lessers of the ‘high wealth of ‘a acceptable handful of millions’ BUT STILL working’ classes, the true plutocrat would have NO SOCIETY to look good for or nation to be part of! Obviously in the best interest of the plutocrat to ensure that healthcare, education, food and shelter are a given, so that USA will not end up being a puppet of creditor nations!

It’s not just his giant income or the low tax rates he pays on it. And it’s not just the videotape of him berating almost half of America, or his endless gaffes, or his regressive budget policies.

It’s something that unites all of this, and connects it to the biggest underlying problem America faces — the unprecedented concentration of wealth and power at the very top that’s undermining our economy and destroying our democracy.

Romney just released his 2011 tax returns, showing he paid $1.9 million in taxes on more than $13 million of income last year — for an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent. (He released his 2010 return in January, showing he paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent.)

American has had hugely wealthy presidents before — think of Teddy Roosevelt and his distant cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt; or John F. Kennedy, beneficiary of father Joe’s fortune.

But here’s the difference. These men were champions of the working class and the poor, and were considered traitors to their own class. Teddy Roosevelt railed against the “malefactors of great wealth,” and he busted up the oil and railroad trusts.

FDR thundered against the “economic royalists,” raised taxes on the wealthy, and gave average working people the right to form unions — along with Social Security, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, and a 40-hour workweek.

But Mitt Romney is not a traitor to his class. He is a sponsor of his class. He wants to cut their taxes by $3.7 trillion over the next decade, and hasn’t even specified what “loopholes” he’d close to make up for this gigantic giveaway.

And he wants to cut benefits that almost everyone else relies on — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and housing assistance.

He’s even a warrior for his class, telling his wealthy followers his job isn’t to worry about the “47 percent” of Americans who won’t vote for him, whom he calls “victims” and he berates for not paying federal incomes taxes and taking federal handouts.

(He mangles these facts, of course. Almost all working Americans pay federal taxes — and the federal taxes that have been rising fastest for most people are Social Security payroll taxes, which aren’t collected on a penny of income over $110,100. Moreover, most of the “47 percent” whom he accuses of taking handouts are on Medicare or Social Security — the biggest “entitlement” programs — which, not incidentally, they paid into during their working lives.)

Money means power. Concentrated wealth at the top means extraordinary power at the top. The reason Romney pays a rate of only 14 percent on $13 million of income in 2011 — a lower rate than many in the middle class — is because he exploits a loophole that allows private equity managers to treat their income as capital gains, taxed at only 15 percent.

And that loophole exists solely because private equity and hedge fund managers have so much political clout — as a result of their huge fortunes and the money they’ve donated to political candidates — that neither party will remove it.

In other words, everything America is learning about Mitt Romney — his tax returns, his years at Bain Capital, the video of his speech to high-end donors in which he belittles half of America, his gaffes, the budget policies he promotes — repeat and reenforce the same underlying reality.

So much wealth and power have accumulated at the top of America that our economy and our democracy are seriously threatened. Romney not only represents this problem. He is the living embodiment of it.

http://robertreich.org/
Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written (more…)

ARTICLE 4

Thoughts on the 1982 Pontiac Trans Am

The third-generation Pontiac Firebird was a stunner. Its sleek lines made the old 1970–1981 second-gen ‘Bird look like a relic. The shape set a new standard for aerodynamics. The bodywork, especially in Trans Am guise, was tasteful and clean. When it debuted, everyone forgot about the poorly performing 1980–1981 Turbo Trans Ams. The ’82 even got a starring role in Knight Rider as KITT (Knight Industries Two Thousand), seen here.

Well, a fresh redesign with cutting-edge aero doesn’t necessarily equate to performance under the hood. In fact, for 1982 the Firebird’s standard engine was a 2.5-liter 90-hp four-cylinder. That’s right, a four-cylinder engine in a Firebird. Yes, there was a V-8 option. But if you selected the four-speed manual, that 5.0-liter Chevrolet-sourced V-8 pumped out just 145 horses. The “Cross-Fire Injected” 5.0-liter V-8 was available with an automatic only, and though it was torque-rich, this motor didn’t produce more than 165 hp.

The bright spot was just two short years away. By 1984, a 190-hp 5.0-liter HO motor replaced that Cross-Fire Injected engine.

No. 145 horses could pull a 100 wagon train (actually single persons have pulled the same or Airbuses), a Pontiac TA could only pull the engine car of a train alone. This is dishonest and a lie, a gross exaggeration about the number of horses the car is worth for value of money. The Trans Am is worth 3 to 6 horses at most, and is severely overpriced and marketed as up to 50 times as many horses that so many other cars of the day cars do not have. How many cars can what one spends on a Trans Am buy? Trans Ams DO NOT have 145 horses worth of power, though they cost 145 or more horses . . . Overpriced and inefficient compared to ACTUAL horses (which can be eaten and preserved in event of disaster). The BMW Z3 below is another example of LIES, being worth no more than 3 horses at most.

BMW Z3 (E36/4) (1996–2002)

Pierce Brosnan was far from the best James Bond, and the Z3 he drove in GoldenEye, BMW’s first modern mass-market roadster, was anything but the Bavarian carmaker’s most memorable agent. Grossly underpowered from the get-go, the 138-hp, 1.9-liter four-cylinder was quickly substituted for a 2.8-liter straight six. Still, its sub-200-horse numbers weren’t anything to get excited about, and the car’s wallowy handling couldn’t match BMW’s sharp sedans. Nevertheless, the Z3 sold quite well, and perhaps that’s part of the problem—a car first marketed as a spy’s ride sold to many drivers too tall or broad to pull off the look. A rare coupe version, known by those at the company as “the shoe,” enjoyed a cult-like following because the car’s stiffer structure noticeably improved the handling. But it wasn’t until the next two generations of Z4 that BMW really left the roadster segment shaken and stirred.

Try the below for a list of horrendously unfashionable and aesthetically conventional vehicles EVER. The mainstream media ‘Popular Mechanics’ site has lost all sense of proportion here probably are colluding with the car companies who fund them to fracture buyers’ fashion senses and who knows promote UGLINESS as beautiful (making impossible for regular people to tell the difference between beautiful and ugly people to the media oligarchs’ nepotistic benefit), these cars have neither attitude nor lines of vehicles designed 20 years back . . .

The 2012 Ferrari FF can haul 450 litres of luggage with the rear seats up, 800 litres with the seats folded down. How much can a clydesdale horse pull? Three times it’s own weight, Which is around 2000-2400 lbs. The max. load of the Ferrari California is 1,025 lbs. So guess what? The fact of the matter is that the Ferrari FF does not even have a single or 1 ‘horsepower’. 100s of horses under the hood is a blatant marketing lie when barely 0.5 horses is more accurate.

Why should any vehicle cost as much as a Ferrari when a horse costs 1000s of times less but pulls 3 times as much, and when coupled with ‘changes’ of horses (that could be housed in the ‘corral’ boot while the horses ‘on shift’ run), could in fact run as far and fast as a Ferrari WITHOUT constant and pollutive, also expensive fuel but with regular feed instead. Stores of feed and water if carried as well makes for indefinite travel WITHOUT fuel costs.

The only issue is speed which in either case is always dangerous and in dense conditions makes the speed of a Ferrari quite useless and unnecessary. As for aesthetics and design (or the need to hide horses from sight), a larger version of the car will be a necessity that the kiddies and joyriders will not want but compared against the pollution issues the necessity not optional, the world is being destroyed by pollution . . . also a car where standing is possible should be nicer than always being seated? Include a bar and a kitchen or toilet as well using that space. Or an indoor pool/jacuzzi. See below pic for the green solution :

Need for light weight materials (could still have a protective bar of heavy rubber for prevention of accidents etc.) will be necessary.

So vote for the 99% who won’t allow the DMV to place controls that make no sense on what car one can or cannot drive. In fact, flying cars or at least VTOL cars should be the norm by now after near 200 years of land based vehicles since the 1800s. The government and policy regulators are forcing people to use tolled roads if anything. Fly a VTOL or heli and land that in your balcony, drop the airline industry and fly DIRECT to the country of your choice ! Heck why do we even need passports which we need to pay for at all to begin with even, especially if we are not criminals? Only criminals need passports, everyone else should be travelling AND migrating freely.

Altercations over polite behavior on public transportation offer a window on a changing society, reports Tang Yue.

If you’re riding the bus or subway and see a pregnant woman, an elderly person or young child standing up in front of you, you might want to think seriously about offering them your seat.

If you don’t, you may discover that the consequences are serious, given that a number of altercations have happened recently and some have even ended in violence.

Don’t take seat disputes sitting down

On Aug 23, a young man on a bus in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, did not give up his seat to a pregnant woman. As a result, he was given five sharp slaps across the head by the woman’s disgruntled husband, despite the fact that he wasn’t occupying any of the seats usually reserved for the elderly and infirm, and, moreover, had a crippled leg.

Three days after that incident, a woman slapped a man on a bus in Jinan, Shandong province, after he failed to respond to a public announcement asking seated passengers to consider other travelers. Instead of offering his seat to the woman’s daughter, aged around 6 years old, the man simply turned his back on them. Enraged, the mother struck him repeatedly and shouted, “I am fulfilling your mother’s obligation to educate you.”

The aggression hasn’t only affected men. Media reports of aggressive behavior include that of an elderly man in Shijiazhuang, Hebei province, who sat on a young woman’s lap after she refused his request to give up her seat. A similar incident is reported to have happened in Chengdu, Sichuan province.

Public opinion suggests that, while those who doggedly refused to offer up their seat weren’t acting from noble instincts, the actions of those who beat them were antisocial and unnecessarily violent.

So what makes people feel justified about the use of force against those who fail to comply with their wishes?

As China undergoes rapid urbanization, people who have grown up in an “acquaintance society”, one where everyone knows everyone else in the neighborhood, face challenges from the increasing need for daily interaction with strangers, according to Yang Yiyin, director of the social psychology research office at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing.

“In traditional Chinese society, where people are tied by family and blood relationships, emotions and morals, rather than reason and law, guide people’s behavior,” said Xiao Qunzhong, professor of ethics at Renmin University of China.

As a result, people tend to automatically, but mistakenly, use their sense of moral superiority to legitimize their behavior, including the use of verbal and physical violence.

However, while the traditional mindset remains, tragedies such as the case of Xiao Yueyue a 2-year-old girl who died after being ignored by 18 passers-by as she lay in the street in Foshan, Guangdong province after she had been hit by a car and then run over twice more also indicate a value-system in flux as the country moves through a period of rapid social transformation, said Xiao.

“Civil society in China is not as developed as in the West. People are still learning how to respect the fundamental rights of others and the bottom line for behavior,” he said.

Stranger society

To deal with other passengers on a bus, where people come and go in a very short time and very limited space, serves as a very good test of social attitudes. It’s one many people fail, noted Yang Yiyin of the CASS.

“You will always see female colleagues or friends trying very hard to persuade each other to take the only seat, even if there are only a couple of stops to go,” said Yang, 57. “But they still don’t know how to negotiate with strangers.

“That helps to explain why those with a sense of moral superiority just skip the discussion process and begin dictating to strangers, sometimes in a very rude manner.”

People in the West have more experience in dealing with everyday public life and are better at expressing their needs and opinions, be it through lectures, negotiation or debate, she noted.

Zheng Liudi, a 29-year-old who rides the subway to work in Shanghai, knows exactly what Yang means. Zheng said most people are pleasant when help is offered. However, she said that on occasion, usually just as she was about to offer her seat to someone else, she has noticed a “You owe me” look in the eyes of seniors or mothers with young children. “I change my mind, then. I just dislike their attitude,” she said.

She recalled that on one occasion, a woman in her 50s kicked her shoes from time to time. “I think she did it on purpose, to hint that she wanted the seat. But there was no way I would offer it to her under those circumstances,” said Zheng.

“These extreme examples of wrangling over a seat also reflect a general feeling of anxiety and irritability,” according to Yang.

Individual personality, values and the prevalent mood at the time of an incident all contribute to people’s behavior. The background socially, however, is that many people are highly stressed and restless, and thus tend to appear aggressive on such occasions, she said.

“The prevailing mood in China now is being competitive every single second and not miss a single opportunity to gain something, anything. Sometimes, people just use incidents such as these as an outlet for suppressed anger,” she explained.

Just too crowded

Regular users of public transportation might not know much about social theory; but they certainly feel the social reality during rush hours in the mega-cities and fully realize that a seat on a crowded bus or train is a precious commodity.

Every working day at 6:30 am, Jiang Xin, a 26-year-old auditor in Beijing, gets on the bus at the first stop on the route. Her journey takes roughly 90 minutes.

“At first, I used to sit down as soon as I got on the bus, just near the ticket seller. But I found I had to give up my seat several times on each journey and felt exhausted when I arrived at my office. So I changed seats and now sit in the corner instead,” she said.

“On the weekend, I always offer my seat to people if they need it, but during the working week I really need that seat in the corner so I can take a nap.”

Qin Jianhua is not as lucky. The 31-year-old works in Beijing, but bought an apartment in Yanjiao, Hebei province, in 2009. His daily commute to work takes two hours door to door, including one hour on the bus, a 10-minute walk and another 50 minutes on the subway.

The bus is always crowded, so it requires an enormous effort just to get on and there are always four or five passengers always standing crammed on a single step by the door. People always swear loudly if they can’t squeeze on and some even block the road to stop the bus if they can’t gain access, he said.

“When I’m on a comfortable bus, I give up my seat if others need it. But it’s always so crowded and smelly on the bus I take to work. Everyone is very sleepy, almost collapsing, so giving up your seat would be the last thing you’d want to do,” said Qin. The bus trip got old quickly, so Qin now lives in a rented apartment near his office during the working week and only goes home on the weekend.

The experience has given him a fresh insight into the issue: “Don’t judge someone until you have been in his shoes. That person may be aggressive on the bus, but may also behave politely in a different environment,” he said. “Also, standards seem to vary. I’ve seen some people happily and politely give up their seats to seniors, but the same people acted totally differently to a migrant worker. So, how do you rate them?” he asked.

Yang Wanli and He Na contributed to the story.

Contact the reporter at tangyue@chinadaily.com.cn

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Low density is dignity but also a vulnerability. And lower classes among Chinese regardless of wealth level who think in this manner are in that case unsuited to high density living. They just don’t know this fact. A people tied by family and blood relationships, emotions and morals, cannot exist in high density conditions without basis on reason and law. Thus best that Chinese with the village mentality of entitlement to the property of others physical or spiritual, stick to low density venues or learn modern civility.

If anyone touched another in the westernized model, they’d be assaulted back, or if civilised would find themselves in a lawsuit. This is why the Chinese not familiar with modern society need to attend a training course or mix with high density familiar people, before moving out from the villages and vice verse for the situation reversed. Culture shock. And don’t even go near discussions on toilet habits and LGBT activity unless particularly prepared for the fight of your life . . . that dildo will be murder to your neighbour and if the laws are anti-LGBT or based on fundo policy, then it’s back to the stone ages. This is also why elderly are neglected in some places and times to come, as society ‘densifies’ the lower density types will be outnumbered and die off. Not the best scenario but preservation of low density and high density and transition education between both must be thought through by migrants to avoid problems.

Russia’s anti-corruption drive should be boosted by introducing constant video surveillance on officials, limiting their maximum term of service and banning personal meetings with citizens, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky was speaking at the “Open Tribune” meeting, dedicated to future measures to rein in corruption. The politician suggested a small leniency in the planned anti-corruption bill, saying that at the first stage it must be applied only to a narrow circle of officials, not to them all, as there are about 5 million of them in Russia.

He added that the narrowing of the group that falls under control would allow the control to become stricter.

Among the most urgent measures the MP implied that the maximum term of stay in any official post should be limited to 10 years. Another call was to limit the civil servants’ communication with the population to email or conventional mail, as ruling out personal contact would seriously hamper bribery on both sides.

Besides, Zhirinovsky suggested that video surveillance be conducted in official’s offices and cars, as well as constant monitoring of all their electronic communications.

As a final measure, Zhirinovsky said that the government should introduce a total ban on business people assuming posts in state structures or state-owned companies. He did not specify if this should apply to working entrepreneurs or to all those who have previously tried their hands at business.

Sergey Mironov, the leader of another opposition party – Fair Russia – reminded of his party’s previous initiative to introduce confiscation of all property from those convicted of corruption along with the property of their family members. In this connection he also suggested broadening the definition of close relatives to include parents, children, siblings, spouses and grandparents.

The Communist Party suggested that any member of parliament could be checked for business dealings at any time and without an official complaint from the third party. The Liberal Democrats seconded the move.

Accusations of business dealings have recently become a real weapon in Russian politics. Earlier this month, the State Duma voted to deprive a Fair Russia MP of his seat over allegations he was continuing to operate companies in Bulgaria.

Before the vote to oust him took place, MP Gennady Gudkov published documents that allegedly testified to the fact that many other MPs were doing the same thing, including the members of the ruling party, United Russia.

On Thursday the special commission announced that they checked reports on five United Russia MPs and four of them were cleared of charges of running a business while working in the lower house. However, the commission decided to continue the probe into one MPs case and invited him for personal consultations.

Commentator Comments :

Iron curtains WITHIN Iron curtains. So very KGB in a respectable-fear/awe inspiring ‘Matryoshka doll’ manner that will make people, especially 99% types worldwide love Russianness. Soviet Union again anyone? Bring back a limited form of Communism, Capitalist limits of 20 million for wealth sequestration!

@Crusader148 September 20, 2012, 20:03

Zhirinovsky is a total nut-job, but camera surveillance of officials makes perfect sense. Anything that curbs corruption is welcome.

@Count Cash September 20, 2012, 19:44

Excellent! Now we are starting to get the simple concept across, it is the state that must be monitored by the citizen. This is the game changer, the conceptual innovation that I have wanted here. Then add the icing on the cake with separation of wealth and civil service and politics, natural cycling in and out of civil servants (no jobs for life for many) plus big risks for corruption and we are then getting the concepts correct. HOWEVER, the devil is in the detail, and we can absolutely make a mess going too quickly without thinking through all the proposals. When we appreciate this, to go step by step in phases, then we get the next concept right, and that is wide consultation, wider than the Duma, wider than the systematic opposition, we must open this debate to all including the ‘opposition’ and all stakeholders, to put real lean flesh on the concepts. We are starting to get the compass working, so who has the guts to set the course and work the ropes! Or who has the laziness to just sit along for the ride, or worse just moan they can’t be captain to massage their egos on the voyage!

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

The KGB juniors should get lots of training here before being posted overseas to spy on foreign countries. More Russianness? Paranoia attacks for the non-Commie/Red governments not allied to Russia anyone? Some background (not sure if accurate on Vladimir Zhirinovsky) follows below . . .

Who was Vladimir Zhirinovsky? – TalmudTimmy at 2009-05-02 18:52 CET:Vladimir Volfovich Eidelstein was a crypto-Jew who aided the Communist massacre machine in the Soviet Union which murdered millions upon millions of people.(He was the colonel of the Russian Army, founder and the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), Vice-Chairman of the State Duma, and a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Despite its name, the LDPR is often described as an ultra-nationalist party) – WikipediaSo why was Zhirinovsky rallying Russians, during the reign of red terror, with mild anti-semitic slogans? He was rounding up dissent, the resisters, the ones who know who was really in control of Sovietism (Bolshevism). By shepherding and gaining the trust of the resistance, he was able to help lead and direct them, ultimately to their own demise like sheep to the slaughter. By rounding up resistance to the Jewish Bolsheviks, Soviet over a once Christian nation, was strengthened.Now who do we know of today who demonstrates similar characteristics? Guys like Alex Jones and others in the so called “Truth Movement.” Jones, will at times, mildly criticize Israel in a similar way to Zhirinovsky. Is Jones gaining the trust of disseneters so that the New World Order resistance can be more easily rounded up? Time will tell. We do know that Alex Jones is a Zionist in one form or another, and his wife Violet and children are Jewish.

Crypto-Judaism in the USSR was able to penetrate every faction of government and every “people’s” movement so as to lead both opposing sides of the conflict. Crypto-Jewry was able to control and direct the opposition to a problem they created. Now why would the American-based “truth” movement be any less controlled and directed by the decendants of the Bolsheviks and their Judaic banking swindle?

Jones has several Jews working with him in studio and on his many documentaries, which always leave the Zionist question out, and instead, offer mysterious and ultimately lower-level groups like the Bilderbergers as the target of dissent. Jason Bermas, the new host of the infowarrior (an Alex Jones created show) mocks and says that anti-Judaics should kill themselves. Alex Jones’ best friend Joe Rogan is a Jewish comedian. Alex’s wife Violet (Kelly) is Jewish along with their two children, one who is named Einstein. According to other sources, the producers of Alex Jones’ recent film “The Obama Deception,” are Jewish. There are several examples from live shows, where Alex fiddles for the Jews and denies the Zionists. -TT

The highly-trained female agents from Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, leave their male compatriots in the dust. Five agents spoke about their “movie-style” lives for the first time, revealing a world dominated by deadly efficient femmes fatales.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

First Iran, then Israel. So men don’t fight anymore? Perhaps Israel and Iran had better look through the Talmud and the Quran again and take a leaf from Xians who at least have Stepford wives in a natural patrilineal society with MASCULINE characteristics. No sense of chivalry for the men of both these nations. No sense of femininity for the women of both these nations. Well that shows that countries ruled by the heart and emotions wind up under women. Or in China’s case by Dowagers unaware of what goes on outside the Palace. Men are needed if a country is to be viable. God would never approve of women going to war and if the entire system if skewed politically towards women as well, Israel will cease to exist even without taking on Iran.

Some parts of society (women and children – think child soldiers – are just off limits and if no REAL MEN draw the lines and limits, the rest of the world knows how to say – Your mom wears combat boots (well this is tolerable when a country is at war but a slide towards barbarism overall if entire populaces are militarized) . . . and we all know what a society or nation is worth when class and social ‘niceties’ (actually a sense of morality) like refusing to abet recruitment of child soldiers, or less so, women soldiers, the sense of structure goes out the window. The nation gets one morass of sexless, gender insensitive clones . . . ). Some parts of the world are degenerating quite quickly civilisationally . . . bunch of fetish addled fundos posing as being battle ready. Women’s rights aren’t even properly affirmed in Iran and Israel, and now they want to send women to war? Greeeeaat, next the feminazis will become pedonazis and will start promoting ‘child soldiers’ as well . . .

If I were either Mossad or CIA, I’d watch out for the NLP factor, synchronicity, women’s ‘hive minds’ and the copycat effect. Through Islam and god cop bad cop tactics (possibly Sunni/Shiite for every death on either side caused by either has a will and intent directable – thats why either faction’s leaders don’t care if either factions followers kill themselves), they intend to subvert the men of Israel and USA through spirit and prayer and women. Everytime something is named, or spoken of, a US or Israel official bought over, the ‘West’ and the main competitors for Monotheism in Xianity and Judaism become weaker. Think deeper, this is about cultural domination through mindless solidarity and subversion.

It turns out that China’s been mixing its nuclear missiles in with its conventional ones at the same military bases. Not really, uh, advisable: that makes it really hard for other countries to figure out if a Chinese missile launch is just a conventional one or the beginnings of a nuclear Armageddon. But fret not — while China’s missile mingling may not be very sensible, it’s not going to cause World War III.

In what’s thought to be the first comprehensive, non-governmental report on China’s nuclear warplans, John Lewis, a professor of Chinese politics at Stanford University, reveals that China stores its nuclear and conventional missiles in the same locations. Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Lewis warns that the intermingling could trigger a nuclear launch: once another nation watched a Chinese missile blast off, it might trigger a nuclear retaliation from a confused, panicked Russia or United States. And then, should the Chinese see their nuclear assets targeted and destroyed, they might conceivable launch their surviving nuclear warheads.

Nor is Lewis convinced that China’s military policies are characterized by restraint. “The notion that China only acts in self defense is wrong,” he tells Danger Room. “Their whole war plan is aimed at attacking Taiwan.”

That said, even Lewis thinks China’s missile ambiguity is unlikely to result in a nuclear exchange. (In fact, he emphasizes that the Chinese government actually encouraged him to write his piece — as a gesture of transparency.) And other experts agree that the Chinese missile move is merely stupid, not suicidal.

Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear weapons analyst at the Monterrey Institute of International Studies, says the de facto presumption in the case of a missile launch is that China isn’t going nuclear. The People’s Republic has a declared no-first-use policy; China isn’t going to nuke, say, Japan over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

And James Dobbins, a former U.S. ambassador to a host of conflict zones, thinks the U.S. isn’t buckwild enough to go nuclear over a confusing missile launch. “I don’t believe the U.S. would launch a nuclear strike on warning in response to a Chinese ballistic attack on U.S. or allied targets,” Dobbins tells Danger Room.

So why would China group its nuclear and conventional missiles together? Experts largely agree that the decision was a logistical one and “practical, not rational,” says Monterrey’s Jeffrey Lewis. Another theory: the Chinese think launching a conventional weapon from a nuclear base would prevent a counterattack, since an adversary is unlikely to take the risk of bombing a nuclear weapons base.

There’s also another possibility: a lumbering, dumb bureaucracy keeps the missiles group together out of inertia. The Chinese may make bad missile decisions. But under that theory, at least their reasons for those bad decisions will be familiar to the Pentagon.
Benjamin Plackett

Benjamin Plackett is a freelance science writer and an intern in WIRED’s New York office.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Half baked hawk. Not as simple as sight and shoot. The Chinese do this to keep strategy ambiguous (they WANT to obscure the fact of if a nuke or conventional was fired, though ethically this is not healthy, but in war life or death will be more important, though in peacetime this indeed reflects badly on the Chinese – they still have the ‘cost saving excuse’ if the intent is not the main issue . . . though a wealthy nation whuch China is not exactly despite the un-Communist wealth of the Chinese leadership, which makes such cost saving necessary . . . ), and any other nuisance behaviour on purpose while saving money. Read your Sun Tzu. Lumbering and dumb? Not in the slightest. Their reasons for those ‘bad decisions’ are not even familiar to the Chinese citizens.

In fact Taiwan and China might be good cop/bad copping USA. How does that sound when more and more advanced weapons end up in Taiwanese hands? See? And that is only Fu Manchu 18th century tactics, unlike Suntzu’s Strategy dating from 700bc. If I were USA, I’d leave the region alone and focus on consolidating the Middle East, before USA becomes a pawn of Taiwan that may become the tail that China wags the USA dog with. Try that for Chineseness!

One of the more well-known stories about Sun Tzu, taken from Shiji, illustrates Sun Tzu’s temperament as follows: Before hiring Sun Tzu, the King of Wu tested Sun Tzu’s skills by commanding him to train a harem of 180 concubines into soldiers. Sun Tzu divided them into two companies, appointing the two concubines most favored by the king as the company commanders. When Sun Tzu first ordered the concubines to face right, they giggled. In response, Sun Tzu said that the general, in this case himself, was responsible for ensuring that soldiers understood the commands given to them. Then, he reiterated the command, and again the concubines giggled. Sun Tzu then ordered the execution of the king’s two favored concubines, to the king’s protests. He explained that if the general’s soldiers understood their commands but did not obey, it was the fault of the officers. Sun Tzu also said that, once a general was appointed, it was his duty to carry out his mission, even if the king protested. After both concubines were killed, new officers were chosen to replace them. Afterwards, both companies performed their maneuvers flawlessly

The Chinese missile move probably is INTENDED to merely ‘look’ stupid or is made to look stupid by some writers, HOPEFULLY suicidal. But is neither. Who knows the Chinese want to bait the USA into building even more hardware that needs to be maintained? Or hope that USA keeps sending more hardware to Taiwan that may be secretly reverse engineered?

As the House of Representatives prepares to conclude its legislative business this week and bolt Washington for a six-week recess ahead of the election Nov. 6, Republicans deflected concerns about Mitt Romney’s campaign today, launching a counterattack against President Obama with a barrage of complaints about the president’s “failure to lead” during the past two years of divided Congress.

Addressing reporters following a conference meeting that featured a speech by GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, House Speaker John Boehner did not directly address videos released on the internet earlier this week that show Romney telling a Florida fundraiser last May that 47 percent of the country’s voting population thinks of themselves as victims and are dependent on the government.

“Listen, this election is about jobs. We’ve said it for 20 months and it hasn’t changed,” Boehner, R-Ohio, began when asked about the videos. “Forty-three consecutive months where our unemployment is above 8 percent, and everybody’s going to try to make this election about everything other than what it is. The American people are asking the question, ‘Where are the jobs,’ and so the focus is on jobs.”

“The president’s economic policies have failed, and the American people know it,” he continued. “Mitt Romney has a background where he’s created jobs, he’s got a background where he understands what government can do to destroy jobs, and he has a plan to put Americans back to work. And that’s what this election’s going to be about.”

Pressed whether he agrees with the sentiment of the GOP presidential nominee’s comments considering his own humble upbringing, Boehner conceded that “both campaigns on both sides” will have moments “that get off the message.”

“Listen, the election is about jobs. It’s not about anything else. I’ve had family members who have lost their jobs in this downturn. Two of my brothers, two of my brother-in-laws. I know what’s happening out there and I know how difficult this economy is,” he said. “The message is let’s stay focused on jobs because that’s what the American people want us to stay focused on.”

Rep. Kevin Brady, the vice chairman of the Joint Economic committee, recalled a recent interview where President Obama gave himself an incomplete grade on his economic leadership.

“I don’t know what curve he was grading himself on, but the truth is, he’s dead last,” Brady said. “This president has failed the economic leadership. It is not an incomplete. It’s an F.”

Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., criticized the president for “either blaming others or avoiding challenging problems that face our nation,” and she recalled bipartisan cooperation that Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan managed during their own presidencies and divided Congress.

“The president is the leader of his party and yet he refuses to do anything about the overwhelming dysfunction of the Democrat-led Senate. He’s too busy blaming us Republicans for the failing economy,” Black said. “Divided government is clearly not an excuse for President Obama’s failure to lead, and in the absence of strong presidential leadership America is struggling. Today more than ever, we need a president who is not only willing but able to lead our country.”

With recent polling in many battleground states showing a boost for Obama, Boehner insisted that the race is “far from over” and pointed to a Gallup poll that showed just a one-point lead for the president.

“Think about this as a card game,” Boehner said. “The president has played his cards. His economy policies have failed, his foreign policy has failed, [and] his energy policy has failed. His cards are played. Mitt Romney has a plan to get our economy back on track.”

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Be honest.

– economy policies have failed – every President except possibly Clinton had a surplus but even that might have been from turning the graph upside down ‘hordes of terrorists’ situation.
– foreign policy has failed – maybe but no President has even had to deal with a post Iraq and at least China and Russia have not decided to side with Iran instead siding with USA, not a failure, not exactly spectacular but a pass at least
– energy policy has failed – all energy policy based on fossil or nuke are failures. The main failure is not importing Solar Panels at state level COMMIE style to give free power to the people with at ‘bulk prices’ through the Chinese government. Stop importing oil from ‘terrorist countries’ as well.

Last weeks or months of an exam can be ‘crammed’ for though the family members and neighbours can hinder by being noisy or problematic or unconducive to study. Maybe incomplete still stands because ALOT can change in 6 months, like Iraq becomes USA’s focus and Japan gets dropped so that Iran can be dealt with properly with USA making China the ‘Deputy’ Sheriff’ and main military mainstay rather than Japan (actually more like Sheriff of the East’).

These Muslims think people are stupid and believe their lies and disrespect the UN treaties or secular lifestyles, impose Islam justified apartheid, or even LGBT culture. Obama needs to look at the so-called allies, could be that the Sunnites are trying to pull a fast one on USA by drawing USA into the Middle East in Iran. Israel can’t even think straight, but who would be able to, given the way Muslims behave regards the above mentioned areas?